My 50 to 1 project interview is now online, along with the main video

This will be a top sticky post for a day or two, new articles will appear below this one.

UPDATE: podcasts are now available, see links below.

50_to_1_logoReaders may recall that back in May, I helped with obtaining funding for the 50 to 1 project out of Australia. During the summer, the project organizers made good on their promises to interview a number of people on the skeptical side of climate science, yours truly included. There’s also the main video which sums up the state of climate science and politics in just under 10 minutes.

My video interview is presented mostly as it happened, with only some very light editing done to the one on one interview in my office, and it runs almost an hour and covers several topics. The main theme video, hosted by Topher Field, who is the producer, is also available below:

The main video:

The 50 to 1 website:

It also has the data and calculations (in a PDF) for support of the video, along with full length interviews from other contributors.

UPDATE: Reader Mark aka “Jabba The Cat” has converted audio from the videos into podcasts for listening to while driving or other activities. He writes:

These links are to the mp3 audio files, at Tubescoop, that I stripped out from the Topher interview videos on Youtube so that WUWT readers can load them into their iPhones, Android devices and music players.

Anthony Watts

Fred Singer

Joanne Nova

Donna Laframboise

David Evans

Henry Ergas

Christopher Essex

Marc Morano


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

I have been watching the video interviews and they are compelling. Probably more compelling than trying to squeeze it into a cartoon-led soundbite video. What is interesting is that even without a tightly scripted, motivated-reasoning pitch the absurdity of the hypothesis shows through, and that sceptics are reasonable people that want to see things done properly.

Short and succinct. Great video to share.

Richard D

Excellent, worthwhile project that hoists the warmest by their own petard.


This is a tad off-topic, but have you seen/discussed the following paper:
I’m not sure exactly how long this south pacific cycle is, but it could mean we’re heading for years of almost constant temperatures.


Watched the first video, so far the best $100 I spent politically this year.
Waiting to see how my second $100 goes at AGU….
Keep it up guys!

Grey Lensman

Re posted the videos at my little place. A lot there will not like it or debate it but they will insult and defame me and Anthony, a sure sign they are getting rattled.

I hope i can get my University Professor brother to watch it.
Good job Anthony! You are so clear and understandable.

Nice to see my money was so well spent. The interview with Anthony and Joanne were great. I would caution Donna to not use the court room analogy. Not sure how is goes in Canada, but since they’re a commonwealth I’d suppose it’s fairly close to the British legal system. And that system is not impartial, it’s adversarial – as it is here in the US. So if someone can “stack the deck”, they will.


Great interview Anthony in the video.


The last 100 or so years have varied by probably less than 1 C on a global average scale.
I doubt it can get much more constant than that !
Seems to me to be just an explanation for the models being wrong so far. Change the model fudge factors so it flattens out for the last 17 or so years. Easy to predict after the event.
They have also probably realised that there will be some cooling over the next decade or so, and don’t want to be left behind too much. Once they remove CO2 completely, they will have a much better chance of being correct over the next several decades.


I’ve watched yours, Anthony, and Marc Marano’s interview………very well done.
Gives a realism to watts going on.
Looking forward to watching the rest of the videos.

Bryan S

Anthony Watts– I’ve really enjoyed hearing your interview. I don’t mean to toot my own horn (oh heck, yes I do)… but I’m a liberal late 20s Obamaniac who despises the GOP and almost everything they represent. But when it comes to science, I see so many parallels between the truly crazy movements of the far left and far right and the climate debate… and I have to call BS! You are so right about climate science. We can expect a moderate warming from our activities… one that is small, manageable, and probably beneficial to humankind in the long term. As a self professed tree hugger (yes, I’ve hugged trees before), I detest the way climate change alarmism has detracted from the environmental issues that really matter (deforestation of tropical forests, bad forest management here in the U.S. that has destroyed our once pristine landscape, etc). And as a poor.. I cannot afford to donate money to your cause…. but I can tell you now if I ever have two nickels to rub together in this economy, I will think long and hard about donating to your cause of climate realism. The truth is: Humanity is becoming more peaceful, people are being lifted out of poverty by the wonderous energy output of fossil fuels, and our future, even if slightly warmer, looks bright if you just sift through the claptrap. I will continue to encourage other people in my age group to care about the issue of climate change and to find the truth. You are an accidental leader on this issue… but the positive impact you have on climate science and the scientific process in general is no accident… and I mean to support that.

William McClenney

Well that was the second “best hour” I have spent this summer. Thanks 50:1 Project and Anthony

Steve Case

So far I’ve listened to Anthony’s and Donna’s interview. I hope the rest are as well done. Reasonableness and sticking to the facts should eventually win the day. However, I was disheartened today to read that the Sierra club forced the closing of several power plants in Indiana. I fear we have a long way to go.

To be brief Anthony: You did good.

Thanks, Anthony. Well done.

Alan the Brit

Well worth an hour off work to watch! Excellent.


The best part was the end “Stop being afraid. Start thinking.”
Perfect way to politically attack.


Nice job, you come off as very centered and rational, which is exactly not how folks on the other side characterize us.


Bryan S
Good on you for seeing through so much of the claptrap, and you are so right about the damage done by vamping attention from other real and serious environmental issues.
And good work, Anthony and Topher. It was a privilege to part-fund this, even if it was a tiny contribution. I am ‘One of the 690’. 🙂

son of mulder

First one I watched was Dr David Evans. Excellent scientific critique.

Jonathan Berber

Excellent interview, Mr Watts. First class performance, persuasive and highly credible.
I don’t expect that the BBC will give 50:1 any airtime here in the UK.
At least we are now seeing some AGW proponents admitting to a the lengthening plateau in surface temperatures.

It is about the money and the ability to extract it from masses of consumers and taxpayers and then have politicians and bureaucrats redirect based on their choices.
But it is a theory that gets to control human behavior more generally and the economy while pretending it is all for our own good. It obscures the true nature of the power and financial grab. The reports that push this, in order to obscure the harm to the economy, consistently inflate Growth by a subjective factor that shows up in the footnotes as the benefits of greater well-being. Similar to the Obama Administration’s Social Costs of Carbon.
Like education, these obtuse greedy schemers and naifs are going to destroy what works as they attempt to control it.

A good interview. Thankyou. Well Done.

Bloke down the pub

Now I can call myself a film producer. Conjures up image of Mel Brooks.

Bryan S says:
September 2, 2013 at 12:02 am
Well said Bryan and welcome on board the reality express. In the end this not about politics but what is a rational approach to the environment and the needs of our fellow man.

Look forward to watching the interviews, but I wish Mr. Topher had refrained from using the weasel term “climate change.” It’s all about hypothetical Global Warming, and that’s the petard the Climatists should be hanged upon.
/Mr Lynn

The other Phil

Nice work. I’m happy to say I contributed.

Anthony, great interview, I concur with your outlook on Thorium. I recently finished a ‘team’ class paper on Thorium reactors. There were a couple of things that stood out, Other than, Natural Gas w/ CCS, nuclear technology is comparable on a capital costs basis against all other forms of energy production. Once you factor in efficiency, nuclear 90%, wind 37%, and solar 25% (, nuclear becomes by far the better alternative and cheaper than solar and about 20% more expensive than wind (onshore).
So how do we get past the stigma of 3 horrible disasters in nuclear history, 3-Mile Island, Chernobyl, and of course recently Fukishima. This I do not know, it will be an up hill battle. Thorium with slightly lower fission temperatures and a fail safe reactor plug, should be an easy sell yet that will probably not be the case. We all know that there are people that oppose any forward motion on technology.
It baffles me when I see people support the idea that, making energy more expensive is the way to fight climate change, whether that change is real or imagined (computerized). This is not my idea, but an America with cheap, abundant, and clean energy is in a by far better position to innovate ideas to combat any possible future change.
I truly hope more people begin to read and understand what you and many others are trying to say. If Obama gets his way and our energy infrastructure takes the hit that is planned over the next decade, the future outlook is grim. Energy has been a driving force in Americas Economic supremacy over the past century and with us already falling behind crippling our ability to produce energy is not the answer.
I say this often but thank you for what you do, at some point people will wake up and blogs like this will be there only hope for the truth. As we saw in January with the publishing of V4 HADCRUT, there is obviously going to be a push to remove any evidence of cooling from 1940 – 1975 and currently, in a matter of 1 month, Dec 12 till Jan 13, CRU’s warmest month went from 1998 to 2010, despicable!

Bruce Cobb

Calm, rational, thoughtful, and exposing the underbelly of the CAGW beast. Meanwhile, the climate liars have been ramping up the lies and rhetoric, like at the recent climate conference in Majuro;
Rabid climate liar and Obama puppet Kerry bloviates about it;

The biggest problem is that while we have true science and rationality on our side, they have a belief system which circumvents rational thought, logic, and facts. Believers simply want to believe. It’s part of their whole identity.


Great interview, looking forward to seeing the rest.
Thank you for posting the links.


Bryan S says:
September 2, 2013 at 12:02 am
“Anthony Watts–…………………… I detest the way climate change alarmism has detracted from the environmental issues that really matter (deforestation of tropical forests, bad forest management here in the U.S. that has destroyed our once pristine landscape, etc).”
Bryan, please read “1491” and “1493” by Charles Mann, we’re late to the game, for outside of the Northern Prairies for much of the Americas particularly Amazonia there are no “pristine landscapes”
Bryan continues: “………. The truth is: Humanity is becoming more peaceful, people are being lifted out of poverty by the wonderous energy output of fossil fuels, and our future, even if slightly warmer, looks bright if you just sift through the claptrap.”
Bryan, very good, also read “Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful Noble Savage” by Steven Le Blanc to find out what pre-Colonial savagery was.
Bryan continues: “…..I will continue to encourage other people in my age group to care about the issue of climate change and to find the truth.”
Bryan, Thank You.

RC Saumarez

Great. I thought your interview was very balanced and informative.
The 50:1 website is really good.
The problem is, how do we get this to go “viral”?

bit chilly

fantastic contribution to the video series anthony.i have also watched jo nova and david evans contributions.such clear and concise rebuttal based on the observations is impossible for the warmists to realistically dispute.
day by day now it seems the cause is being greatly discredited,it cannot be long before some enterprising politicians see the light and get on the bandwagon in the uk.


I believe one of the key phrases is that we should stop being afraid and start thinking. Most of the young people I encounter who have been raised on climate disaster since the days of their Weekly Reader, are terrified.


I thought the whole thing was very well done EXCEPT for the cartoons. Whilst the figures used within them were good, the cartoons smacked of a much younger age group than the content presented by the interviewees.
Who is this actually aimed at?
I’ve now seen Anthony do several video presentations and there is no doubt that he comes over well, no doubt due to his tv training.

“Stop being afraid, and start thinking”
Well, I suppose the average person may be able to do that,
but whether someone enamored by CAGW by CO2 can do either
is very much in doubt based on their activities so far.
Overall, good presentation of the 50:1 concept.
Glad I was able to help, albeit in a very small way.

Jim G

Let’s see:
If we code the responses inappropriately, subtract them from “average normal responses”, take those anomilies, smooth them, average them, decyclicize them, do some non-linear curve fitting and then incorrectly infer cause and effect where no mechanism is known or can be supported by data of any kind we will have what I call Standard Normal Climate Science Results. Don’t laugh yet, as there are many of our own climate skeptics who publish regularly on this site who are guilty of these offenses as well as those crazed warmists we deride.

stan stendera

Anthony!!! Sticky Post!!!


Thanks Anthony, enjoyed it greatly!

Thanks, Anthony. Good deed. What a roster of scientists and thinkers!

John Blake

Absent unremitting focus on the profoundly anti-scientific political-economic motivations of AGW Catastrophists’ Goebelian claptrap, all objective, rational discourse must ultimately prove futile.
“J’Accuse!” may seem uncivil, but the alternative is Devil’s Island.


Great presentation so far – I’m about half way through. Money well spent!
But on feedbacks, according to the mechanism presumed by “mainstream” Climate Science, I still have no idea why water vapor didn’t already do completely by itself what the “mainstream” Climate Scientists say it will do to assist CO2. It makes absolutely no sense to me that water vapor would need any CO2 at all to do the same thing Climate Scientists say it will do when ‘activated ‘by CO2. Or at the least, why would water vapor not become already activated by a much smaller CO2 concentration? It sounds like Climate Science says both that water vapor is and is not a ghg……………


.@Bryan S
“I don’t mean to toot my own horn (oh heck, yes I do)… but I’m a liberal late 20s Obamaniac who despises the GOP and almost everything they represent.”
Obama’s National Energy Care System will easily give the Great Central Government the full Totalitarian control he and “they” desire. I am a “Classical” Liberal.

Oops, forgot to thank Topher, too.
Thanks, Topher!

Bennett In Vermont

Well done. I am proud to be one of the 690!

I’m halfway through your interview. It is good, but your presentation at Doctors for Disaster Preparedness (DDP) was far better job in communication. The Doctors presentation ia a finely choreographed mix of audio and effective visuals of charts and photographs. The same DDP graphics should be intercut into this video as a version 2.0 edit if the interview is to have any life on the internet.
Please put a link to the DDP presentation on your “About Me” page and give visitors a chance to stumble upon it. Better yet, make the DDP video top line item on a “Watts Best” Index menu.

I know they had to use the IPCC numbers but using the Stern report with its near 0 discount rate makes this 50:1 calculation very low and still it is compelling. For a good discussion of this see Vaclav Klaus’ book “Blue Planet in Green Shacles”


Thanks Anthony very informative. The global weather station expose’ was excellent..
I’ve had carbon dioxide burn out for several years now. So, thanks for the synopsis there too, as I have been just sorta sweeping it way back somewhere in the brain. The thought of ‘carbon credits’ makes me ill.
There’s probably a dust factor they have forgotten to factor as well.
Mankind does have many impacts on the planet, at our rates of usage and population, like Alan Greenspan once or twice or three or more times said, ” It is not sustainable.”

Mike Bromley the Kurd

What strikes me so vividly about video interviews of skeptics versus ‘believers’ is the contrast in demeanour. Anthony, you appear serene and calm, as do others like Tim Ball and Roy Spencer. The antagonistic, indignant, raised-eyebrow expressions on Mike Mann or Peter Glieck bely an inner conflict, as do the hand-wiinging of McKibben and the unconvincing prattle of pols like Kerry & Obama. It really challenges my self control to sit quietly and watch the latter.